Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/12/1985-Adjourned1 ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO February 12, 1985 7:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 12, 1985, at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following CounciImembers: Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Staff Members Present: Arnold, Huisjen, Krajicek, Lewis, Mutch Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision Relating to the Renaissance Center PUD - Preliminary Plan Following is the staff's memorandum on this item: "The applicant is seeking preliminary approval of a 121-unit PUD, on 5.2 acres, zoned BP, Planned Business, located at Remington and Spring Park Drive. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RM; existing residences S: RM; existing apartments E: RL; Spring Park W: BP; University National Land Use Data: Gross area: 5.24 acres Net area: 3.41 acres (Indian Meadows Condos) (Chalet Apartments) Bank Coverage Buildings 36,260 sq. ft. Streets & Parking 43,810 sq. ft. Open space 68,465 sq. ft, Active recreational use area Parking Standard Handicapped Compact Total M:M 228,483 sq. ft. 148,535 sq. ft. 22% 30% 48% 11,000 sq. ft. 171 2 12 185 Maximum building height Units one bedroom/efficiency (497 sq. ft. per unit) 72 one bedroom loft (585 sq. ft. per unit) 48 manager's unit (located in clubhouse) 1 Total units 121 Gross Density 23 DU/AC Net Density 35 DU/AC Discussion 40 ft. February 12, 1985 r 1. Utilities. All utilities are available at the site to handle the, proposed use. 2. Background. Prior to 1978, the western portion of the site was zoned HB-Highway Business, while the eastern portion was zoned BP -Planned Business. In 1978, a proposal was submitted for a skateboard park to be located on this site as a Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Board simultaneously reviewed the skateboard park and a request by several area residents to downzone the entire site to RMP-Medium Density Planned Residential and recommended to Council that the skateboard park PUD be approved and that the downzoning be denied. The Board did, however, recommend approval of a downzoning of the entire site to BP -Planned Business. City Council then rezoned the entire site to BP and the skateboard park proposal was dropped. In 1979, a proposal known as Spring Creek Condos for two 16-story build- ings containing a total of 244 residential units was denied by Council. A subsequent revision to that plan was also denied. In 1981, a mixed - use project known as Dartsmith PUD was approved for the site. This project consisted of a 10,000 sq. ft. health club, 25,000 sq. ft. of office space and 120 residential units. The proposed buildings were 3, 5 and 7-stories in height. The first phase of the project (the office building) was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board later in 1981 and subsequently expired, since no construction ever took place. The Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed two similar proposals for this site, both of which were recommended for approval by planning staff. At the August 1984 Board meeting, the Board voted 4-3 to deny the first application for both preliminary and final PUD approval (See Plan 1 attached). The Board's reasons for their denial included lack of compatibility with the neighborhood due to the bulk of the buildings and intensity of use; site design due to the closeness of the buildings to the street and an adverse impact from automobile lights at the -86- 1 February 12, 1985 Spring Park Drive curbcut. This first plan reviewed by the Board consisted of 121 units (30 units in each of 4 buildings and a manager's unit in the clubhouse) with curb cuts on Spring Park, Remington and Mathews Street. The plan was resubmitted and heard by the Planning and Zoning Board in October, again as both a preliminary and final appli- cation (See Plan 2 attached). Changes made on the second plan included deleting the Spring Park curbcut, changes in the rooflines of the buildings and the commitment to use larger street trees along Mathews Street. At the October Board meeting, the Board again voted 4-3 to deny the project. The Board's reasons for their denial included lack of elevators, a lack of compatibility due to bulk, intensity of use, and closeness of buildings to the street. Neighborhood meetings were held prior to submission to the Planning Office of both of these plans. It should be noted that at the present time, there is no time limit on how soon after denial a plan can be resubmitted. Review of Staff Comments and Recommendations The site plan was reviewed under the Land Development Guidance System. The site achieves 101% on the Density Chart, which would support the proposed density of 23 DU/ac gross, 35 DU/ac net. The following criteria were achieved by the proposed project: ' -650 ft. from an existing transit stop (College Ave.) -4000 ft. from an existing regional shopping center (area along College Ave, is defined as "regional shopping") -3500 ft. from an existing neighborhood park (Spring Park) -3000 ft. from a major employer (the vicinity of Univ. Mall) -1000 ft. from a day care center (Remington/Parker) -contiguity to existing development -recreational use on -site -parking provided underneath the building All applicable point charts are attached. The site is bordered by Remington, Spring Park Drive, Mathews and Dart- mouth. The proposed site plan consists of four buildings (two of which contain 24 units, one containing 32 units and the fourth building con- taining 40 units). The resident manager's unit is located in the clubhouse 1 -87- February 12, 1985 1 facility, at the southern end of the site. Recreational facilities are also located in the southern area of the site and include a pool and volleyball court. The 40-unit building is three stories (max. 40 feet), while the other three residential structures are two-story on the ends and three-story in the central portion of the building. Units range in size from 497 sq. ft. (one -bedroom efficiency) to 585 sq. ft. (one -bedroom loft). Landscaping and berming treatment surround the site on three sides with additional landscaping being provided along the southern area of the site. The location of the ditch does not allow for the installation of street trees along the south property line; however, street tree plantings have been incorporated around the remainder of the site. The interior courtyards have been heavily landscaped, with gatehouses located at each of the two entrances into the courtyard. 1. Recent Changes to Site Plan Since the Board's October denial of this project, the following changes have been made to the site plan: - request for preliminary approval only - placement of residential structures on the site - building height variety - building length changes - arrangement of recreational structures - ten additional parking spaces The four residential structures are oriented around the courtyard, which is now somewhat enclosed by the proposed structures, with two buildings oriented north -south and two oriented in the east -west direction. The 3 smaller buildings (containing 32 and 24 units) are now two -stories in height on each end, while the central portion of the building remains at three stories. The 40-unit building remains essentially the same in height and elevation, but is longer by approxi- mately 40 feet. This building is oriented in a north -south fashion, nearest to the west propertyline. The 32-unit building is also 160 feet in length, while the smaller buildings are still 120 feet long, excluding stairwells. The maximum building height remains at 40 feet. The changes made in the buildings serve to create additional interest, by provided a break in the rooflines. This can serve to visually reduce the "bulky" appearance of the structures. The arrangement of the pool, clubhouse and volleyball courts has also changed, _although all three facilities are still in the southern area of the site. The revised arrangement of the proposed residential structures has resulted in a net gain of 10 parking spaces. The use of larger street trees along Mathews Street and closing the Spring Park curbcut are carried - out on this plan. -88- 1 1 February 12, 1985 2. Neighborhood Meetings No new neighborhood meeting was held on this third application of the proposed project, since the changes made to the plan did not specific- ally address previous concerns and comments made by area residents. The changes proposed, did however, improve the plan from the staff's perspective. Summaries of the previously -held meetings on the first two proposals are included. 3. Traffic Circulation and Parking Several variances to street and access design guidelines have been requested as part of the plan. These are as follows: a Less than 200 feet centerline -to -centerline between Mathews Street curbcut and the Spring Park parking area (actual distance is approx. 170 feet). b. Less than 200 feet centerline -to -centerline between the Remington Street curbcut and the curbcut into the University National Bank area (actual distance is approximately 35 feet) and less than 50 feet flowline-to-flowline setback for the driveway aisle at the ' Remington Street curbcut. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed these requests, along with the traffic impact study submitted with the project, and has approved the variance requests. The parking area in Spring Park is small (approx. 30 cars) and is minimally used. The two variances on the Remington curbcut were granted since the entrance into University National Bank is minimally used and the general use of Remington Street in this area is not for "through" movements, but primarily for persons living along Dartmouth and areas immediately to the south. An update to the original traffic impact study was done in order to evaluate the additional traffic on area streets with both CSU and Poudre R-1 Schools in session. From a traffic engineering standpoint, the area streets and intersections would continue to operate at an "acceptable" level, with the additional expected traffic generated from this project. Improvements at the Remington/Stuart intersection would improve safety conditions and movement at this intersection. The project has met the City's off-street parking requirements (i.e. 1.5 spaces per one -bedroom unit) for residents of the project, which would require 181.5 spaces. Given the small size of the proposed units (i.e. 497 & 585 sq. ft.), staff believes that the 1.5 parking ratio would provide ample overflow spaces. ME February 12, 1985 4. Status of Out -Parcel There is an out -parcel located in the southeastern corner of the site that is under separate ownership. The developer has provided an access easement from the parking lot near this parcel so that independent access from Mathews Street would not have to be granted. No response has been received from this property owner. As part of this project, the developer will be required to extend sidewalks across the canal along Remington and Mathews Streets. Crossing the canal will require construction of new bridge railings to provide safe crossings for pedestrians. Installation of handicapped ramps at both of these cros- sings is also being required. 5. Air Quality One issue that has been raised by area residents is air pollution. The concern regarding air pollution is due to the proposal for fireplaces in each unit and to the location of the site with proximity to Spring' Creek. There is no data available specifically addressing air pollu- tion in Fort Collins created by fireplaces and/or wood -burning stoves. An air quality monitoring and control program is being prepared by a consultant hired by the City. Part of this project will address the issue of fireplaces and wood -burning stoves and their affect on air quality. This project is due to be completed by the end of the year. At this time, the City does not have a policy regarding the placement ' of fireplaces or wood -burning stoves in structures. However, one alternative to insure no negative impact on the neighborhood from fireplaces would be to require the installation of natural gas burning fireplaces only within the units. 6. Storm Drainage Storm water runoff from this site would be piped under Spring Park Drive and released into Spring Creek at a controlled rate. The velocity of runoff to be released is low and erosion protection must be provided in and around the piped area to prevent any erosion of the banks of the creek. Therefore, there would not be any impact on the Indian Meadows area from storm water runoff from this site. The limits of the 100- year floodplain of Spring Creek are along the extreme northern edge of this site. There are no improvements (i.e. buildings or structures) proposed to be located within the floodplain. 7. Neighborhood Character The general character of the area surrounding the site is quite mixed. To the north is the Indian Meadows development, which is a fairly small, low -scale medium density project (12 DU/ac). Spring Park and the fire station are located to the east of the site. Along the south is -90- 1 IFebruary 12, 1985 the Chalet Apartments, which are three story buildings with some parking under the buildings. These structures have the appearance of being taller due to the steep grade difference from Spring Park Drive to Dartmouth, where these units are located. Finally, to the west is the University National Bank, which was constructed when this area was included in the 55 foot height district. Based on the City's Land Use Policies Plan, the site is appropriate for higher density (i.e. near parks and employment centers; with access to public transit and alternative modes of transportation; where utilities are existing, and near the regional/community shopping centers or CSU). Given the surrounding area, this site serves as a transitional area between the commercial area along College Avenue and surrounding residential uses and a public park. In summary, staff has reviewed the project in terms of neighborhood, compatibility, site design and density and has recommended approval of the proposed project to the Planning and Zoning Board based on the compatibility with the area and conformance with the LDGS. Review of Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Comments and Recommendations ' At the December 19, 1984 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-2 to approve the plan (Brown and Simpson voting no) with the condition that the westernmost building be redesigned (stepped -down on ends to two stories) to be compatible with the other buildings on the site (See at- tached minutes)." Councilmember Stoner asked the record to show he did not participate in the discussion or vote on this item. City Attorney Huisjen briefly reviewed the appeal process as outlined in Appendix E of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS). Planning Director Sam Mutch gave a detailed presentation on the history of the development of the site beginning in 1978. He noted the neighborhood had appealed the December 17, 1984 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board based on three questions: 1. there was no neighborhood meeting held prior to the review of the third plan; 2. no plans were furnished to the neighborhood by the developer or staff prior to the meeting; and 3. the neighborhood concerns were not addressed by the petitioner. -91- February 12, 1985 He noted their concerns were compatibility, inappropriate mass and density, inadequate parking, the impact of the traffic, the pollution impact of the fireplaces, the lack of setback from the street, insufficient open space, and inadequate landscaping on the site. Councilmember Clarke asked why a neighborhood meeting was not held prior to the third submittal. Sam Mutch replied that staff had felt the third plan had not addressed the concerns of the neighborhood voiced at the earlier meetings and there was no reason to take it back for input since the neighborhood probably had not changed its opinion about the project and another meeting would be a futile exercise. He noted in retrospect a meeting probably should have been held. Traffic Engineer Rick Ensdorff addressed traffic concerns raised by Coun- cilmembers relating to the intersection of Stuart and Remington. He estimated the intersection would never warrant a traffic signal based on the traffic impact study done for this project. He spoke of the sight distance problem and noted some on street parking might be removed to help resolve the problem. Jack Vahrenwald, attorney representing the developers, introduced Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects, and noted his clients would attempt to address questions raised by the neighborhood and Council. Frank Vaught, ZVFK Architects, presented a model of the project and spoke to the landscaping plans, noting the plantings were illustrated at full ' maturity. He addressed the concerns of the neighborhood and noted their three goals for the project were: 1. a project with a strong identity; 2, to offer a unique housing type; and 3. to provide a quality environment from an architectural and land- scape point of view. He felt the design changes had adequately addressed the concerns relative to building mass and compatibility and that the project would be an en- hancement to the area. He spoke of the traffic studies done in July and September. Matt Delich, traffic consultant, spoke of the trip distribution statistics on Remington and Stuart Streets. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project: 1. E.J. Early, 1822 Indian Meadows Lane, outlined the presentation to be made by the neighbors. 2. Gary Goss, 2223 Mathews, spoke to the building density and profile and projected the mountain view would be lost from •Spring Creek Park. -92- February 12, 1985 3. Billie Garrett, 1804 Indian Meadows, presented petitions contain- ing the signatures of 270 persons opposed to the project. 4. Jerry Warren, 308 Dartmouth Trail, spoke to the traffic concerns of the neighborhood and noted he felt the traffic studies and counts had not addressed bicycle traffic. 5. Virginia Burke, 208 Dartmouth Trail, gave a profile of the people in the neighborhood and spoke of the personal aspects of the resi- dents. 6. Bob Auckerman, CSU Professor, spoke to air pollution concerns and to the responsible use of the burning of wood. He spoke of the fire dangers and of the diminishing supply of wood in Colorado. 7. Pat Lewis, 1809 Busch Court, spoke to air pollution concerns and noted her daughter's respiratory problems. She expressed concern about the erosion of the banks of Spring Creek. 8. Bev Moline, 312 Dartmouth, expressed concerns about the effects of the project on the quality of family life. She addressed the height and density issues, the loss of the mountain view, parking concerns, pollution, and air quality, and felt the project was not compatible with the neighborhood. ' 9. Mike O'Connor, 1812 Busch Court, summarized the four criteria for approval as outlined in the LDGS and noted he felt they had not been resolved and urged denial of the project. 10. Judge Ralph Coyte, 1904 Kedron Drive, spoke to the air pollution concerns from the fireplaces and urged denial. 11. Mark Cummins, Vice -President of University National Bank, ad- dressed the Bank's concerns about parking and the use of the car ports as storage areas. 12. Don Eddy, 2201 Stanford, presented a photo with the Renaissance PUD buildings superimposed on it showing how the mountain view would be blocked from the park. 13. E.J. Early summarized the neighborhood concerns, proposed alter- nate uses for the property and urged denial of the project so that the quality of life in the neighborhood could remain. Reid Rosenthal, developer, spoke to the compatibility and quality of the project. He felt the project met all the LDGS criteria and noted the ground floor units would be adaptable for handicapped conversion. This amounts to 27% of the project. He felt there was a need for these units and urged Council approval. 1 -93- February 12, 1985 Councilmember Clarke made a motion, -seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to approve the project with the following conditions: 1, reduction of the density in the project to 97 units. 2. that no fireplaces be involved or that they be gas -fired fire- places or catalytic converter type wood stoves. 3, that garage doors be installed in the open car ports. Councilmember Clarke felt 97 units was a better density and would help the open space concerns. He felt a commercial development would have more impact on the Remington and Stuart intersection than this residential use. He felt the developer could build four 24-unit buildings plus the one unit in the clubhouse or could build larger units in the buildings or could redesign the entire project. He urged support for his proposal. Reid Rosenthal stated if the 97 units were approved either the project will not be done at all or it will be redesigned and the redesign would address concerns about the bulk and size of the buildings. Gary Goss, 2223 Mathews, spoke in favor of Councilmember Clarke's proposal. E.J. Early, appreciated Council's concern about the air pollution and the elimination of the fireplaces. He expressed concern about the traffic and felt 97 units was still too many for the site. Councilmember Ohlson did not feel reducing the units addressed the issue of I mass or bulk of the project. He felt the entire project should be re- designed. Reid Rosenthal stated if the project were built with 97 units, they would be willing to limit two bedroom or greater units to 10% of the total. Councilmember Clarke noted the intent of his motion was not to allow huge units to be built. He stated he would like to add to the motion that the total building coverage on the site not exceed the equivalent of four of those buildings. Sam Mutch felt the intent was to limit the floor area ratio rather than limit the size of building coverage. When you limit the size of building coverage, they may be one, two, or three stories. The present floor area ratio needs to be determined and then roll it back a certain percentage. Councilmember Clarke noted he intended the buildings to be comparable in height and size to four of the 24-unit buildings presented plus the one unit in the clubhouse. Councilmember Elliott noted he would support the motion since it would reduce the square footage about 20% and offer an opportunity to encourage infill but reduce a lot of the objections to the project. -94- 1 February 12, 1985 Councilmember Knezovich noted he was willing to support the compromise since it addressed the problem of infill development and sprawl. Councilmember Clarke noted that as long as the overall size of the build- ings in terms of height and square footage did not exceed the equivalent of four. 24-unit buildings, 10% could be two bedroom units. The concern is with open space, open views, the intensity of use, the density, and the traffic. Mayor Horak noted he was pleased to see the developers were willing to go with either no fireplaces or gas fired fireplaces. The addition of the garage doors and the unit reduction were an improvement and this is an opportunity to have a quality developer do the development in that area. He noted he would support the project. Councilmember Ohlson noted his initial concerns had been addressed and he would support the proposal. The vote on Councilmember Clarke's motion to approve the project with conditions was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak., Knezovich, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: None. (Councilmember Stoner withdrawn) ' THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Huisjen noted a Resolution making findings of this appeal and setting out the conditions in detail would appear on the February 19 agenda. Adjournment Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Elliott, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Clarke, Elliott, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. P ayo r ATTEST: City Clerk -95-